music, art, poetry, movies, bibles, theology, coffee, beer, cigars

NEWS FLASH! Johnny Mac Study Bible in ESV

There were a few rumors as well as bloggers who were pushing for a John MacArthur Study Bible in the ESV translation. Previously only available in the NASB as well as the NKJV, this study Bible with notes by John MacArthur, whom is widely considered to be one of the greatest living teachers and preachers of God’s word will now be available in a translation more popular than either the NASB or NKJV. There is no release date of this edition, but there was an agreement reached between Crossway whom publish the ESV and Thomas Nelson Publishers whom publish the MacArthur Study Bible.

Phil Johnson dropped the 411 on the Fide-O blog. You can peep it here.

BTW, I mean no dis-respect for John MacArthur by calling him Johnny Mac.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

15 Responses

here is a good video by a creation/evolutionist scientist apologist on the versions of the Bible. this video i believe should answer alot of the stuff in your post on fide-o on what i believe on newer versions vs. the KJV.

this is not exactly a response to your post on fide-o theres just some stuff i would like to see explained:

all “newer versions” (non KJV) have Wescott and Horts finger prints all over them, known Jesuits that were to put it gently “mislead”. Have you studied Wescott and Hort?

Have you studied Westcott and Hort? Do you even know their first names? If you have a problem with the newer manuscripts because of Westcott and Hort being Jesuits why do you not have a problem with the Textus Receptus being based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus, a Roman Catholic?

The video is not by an apologist but by a snake oil salesman. If Kent Hovind is your final authority regarding textual criticism you are already lost, metaphorically speaking.

The older manuscripts were not used because of the rise of Islam not because they were bad copies. Islam had already spread across north Africa by the late 7th century. It is the KJV that uses inferior texts, basing the majority of it’s translation on only 6 very late manuscripts. The TR also has over 1800 differences from the Majority Texts, so not only is from later manuscripts but also the poorer of the Byzantine text-types. That also brings up another problem with wanting to claim that the KJV, having been based translated from the TR, is closer to the original autographs and early church writings but there is no historical evidence that the earliest manuscripts were of a Greek-Byzantine tradition. The TR and thus the KJV cannot trace it’s lineage that far back.

in summary, 1)the video answered nothing of what was posted on Fide-O 2) Kent Hovind is not a scholar… of any sort 3) you should have the same problems with the TR because of Erasmus as you would with earlier manuscripts because of Westcott and Hort

There is huge difference from the work of a Roman Catholic to that of a Jesuit. The Jesuit, dedicated to overthrowing Protestantism deliberately deceives. The Catholic (Martin Luther) may be seeking the truth and may find it.

EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that “there is no perfect Bible”, they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author’s work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer’s Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.
Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus’s which he called a “coenobium. ”
Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled “The Ghostly Guild.”
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, “Mary”),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.
It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God’s Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a “revision” of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.
It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.
Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.

What of Erasmus? He was a Catholic yet you hold to the KJV as the only word of God in English.

If the KJV is beyond reproach, why then has it been revised several times since 1611? Do you use the original 1611 or one of the later revisions?

Instead of reading that drivel that has been put up by men only interested, not in truth, but in slanderous lies and half truths, don’t you learn a little something about textual criticism?

Regardless of who found the earliest manuscripts, it doesn’t change the fact that they are closer to the original autographs than the TR.

The Majority Text wasn’t the majority until about 900 a.d., according to your logic, prior to 900 the Alexandrian or Western texts were the majority and thus superior to the Byzantine Text-Type/Majority/TR texts.

It does not follow that because there are more of one, that it is somehow better than the others.

The whole premise of the KJV only position is uninformed, at best. For anyone who believes the KJV is the only “TRANSLASTION” that is God’s Word, I would recommend they pick up a copy of “THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY” by James White. It will expose all the nonsense espoused by this mislead movement.

The only good news is that many are good brothers and sisters in Christ, but a fair study of this movement will show that newer versions, such as the ESV, NASB etc, are as much God’s Word as the KJV.

If one wants to hold to KJV only — ok. It’s an erroneous position, but at least we can be thankful they hold to the authority of God’s Word! Read it, study it, live it.

…But, don’t get in the face of those who read and study the NASB. It’s as much God’s Word as your beloved KJV.

The fact remains that if your desire is to destroy the Protestant Church, the Christian Church, the Church founded on Scripture alone, the first thing that you would do is to destroy the authority of the original manuscripts and translations. You would do this by introducing a flood of faulty manuscripts and translations, all differing from the other. Today, apparently there is a new translation in English published every week. Some naive pastors encourage the use of these many translations even though they all differ, not only in wording but intent. It becomes a matter of choosing the Word of God that suits what you want to hear. They never discuss the differences and consequences. It is a reflection of the low standard of Biblical studies in our Bible colleges today.

Your last comment was flagged as spam because all you did was link to articles about Westcott and Hort. Jimmy, you never addressed any of the issues I had mentioned. If your only defense for holding to this belief, a belief that can be seen as heretical because of the fact that you have placed the KJV as your idol, is to denigrate Westcott and Hort then your supportive arguments are faulty to the core.

If in fact what these articles are saying about Westcott and Hort are true, how does that change the fact that the older manuscripts are in fact better than the later manuscripts upon which the TR is based? You do realize that Westcott and Hort DID NOT WRITE THE MANUSCRIPTS? All your links are not from a scholarly source but rather from a bunch of KJV bigots.

Jimmy, if you are unable to reply without having to paste and copy from someone else or link to other articles, maybe you should reconsider your position. If you do not address the issues I’ve raised than your comment will be deleted.

RE: ESV Macarthur Study Bible, I’m glad to see this come about, as I know MacArthur really likes the ESV. I have an NASB edition, and the study notes are solid, some of the best I’ve seen in a study Bible.

I assume Thomas Nelson will be publishing this (not Crossway). Unfortunately, I do feel that Nelson has really slipped in recent years regarding the quality of their Bibles.

What of the errors found in translation of the KJV, such as “only begotten son” (begotten- to have been procreated; generated; to cause to exist) instead of “one and only son” in the NIV (only one of His kind).

Monogenias as mono & genias…
With genias having the etymology or root word of:

“genntos” – to beget

or

“genes” – class or kind

You see, in 390 A.D., Gerome made a mistake in his Latin translation of the Bible. Unfortunately, when King James translators made their translation, instead of translating the ENTIRE Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, they only translated about 30 percent of the Bible. Really, the harder passages only. They used the Geneva Bible and the Bishop’s Bible for the rest of the work. So they carried the Latin’s mistakes over to the English translation.

Jesus Saenz, do you honestly think we can trust Phil Johnson’s commment on that blog? It seems like he was joking or else there would be confirmation elsewhere. If there is confirmation elsewhere then, please, let me know. thanks.